Opinions on the "GOAT" (Boxing)

[Arazi4442]

So I consider myself a big boxing fan, but maybe not a die-hard. I wanted to start a collection of the top 10 boxers of all-time. How do you decide? Being me, I decided to try to take a mathematical approach. I googled "Greatest Boxer of All-Time" and made a spreadsheet. (EXCEL!!) Interesting results, no Rocky Marciano, no Mayweather? (I didn't check the dates these lists were made) What are everyone's thoughts?

[Arazi4442]

Better Res.

[PowderedH2O]

Boxing is so subjective, that it is just impossible to be accurate. I think not including Marciano is fair. He retired undefeated, but the competition for him was just not to the level of many others. Robinson fought everyone, and many times fought them multiple times. He beat so many guys that are in the Boxing HOF it is silly. He lost a lot of fights, but most of them were near the end of his career. When he was in his prime, he was nearly unstoppable.

Mayweather might be great, but it is hard to know. Guys like Ricky Hatton and Shane Mosley were fantastic, but they just don't have the same name recognition as Jake Lamotta, Kid Gavilan, and Gene Fullmer. I'm just not sure where to place him, but I think the top 10 might be fair. But, who do you drop off? I've read some old timers say that Stanley Ketchel was better than anyone. Who knows?

[Peter_Spaeth]

My goal is to collect about 10 boxers, not a higher priority, but I am very skewed towards heavyweights and iconic status. So far I have Ali, Frazier, Liston, Holmes, and Ray Leonard. On my list are Louis, Marciano, Jack Johnson, Foreman, and Robinson. WIth the dual complications of comparing across time periods and across weight classes, any top 10 list IMO is, after a consensus few, going to be somewhat arbitrary.

[D. Bergin]

Top 10 Boxers from a Lb for Lb standpoint and Top 10 Boxers from a Collectible standpoint, would be two almost completely different lists.

.....and you'd probably have a hard time agreeing with anybody on either list. :D

[BearBailey]

While I certainly don't agree on that list, for you it is probably better to collect the 10 you want as opposed to who some people consider the top 10. When it comes to collecting I have always found it more enjoyable to collect what you like?

[Arazi4442]

While I certainly don't agree on that list, for you it is probably better to collect the 10 you want as opposed to who some people consider the top 10. When it comes to collecting I have always found it more enjoyable to collect what you like?

That's a good point. And I did end up just making a list of my own choices. Just thought the results of some pretty well known boxing experts was interesting.

[samosa4u]

What kind of collection are you looking to build? I mostly like to collect rookies and going after boxing cards can be a really frustrating experience because majority of the greats don't have one. Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey - none of them have a true rookie.

And yes, boxing is very subjective. This is why you just have to go after the ones that you like. For example, a lot of people don't like Mayweather, but I think he is probably the greatest defensive boxer that ever lived. No matter how big and strong his opponent is, Pretty Boy Floyd will make him look like a fool in the ring. Furthermore, unlike the others, Mayweather does have a true rookie card (1997 Brown's Boxing).

[bobbyw8469]

How is Mike Tyson not even on the list?

[D. Bergin]

How is Mike Tyson not even on the list?


If it was a most collectible list he would likely be on it.

A best boxer list, he doesn't necessarily belong. Admittedly there's several names on there that are kind of reaches.

[Writehooks]

Instead of merely downloading other people's opinions, you might find it more rewarding to do your own research, watch some old video ... and then compile your own "Top 10" list. I've earned my living writing about boxing for the past 30 years and have been a collector of ring memorabilia even longer, and while my choices are no more or less valid than anyone else, at least they're MINE.
You might also want to consider simply collecting 10 fighters who mean the most to you -- not necessarily the best, but guys whose styles/stories/accomplishments strike a chord. From that perspective, my "heavyweight heavy" Top 10 are:

1) George Chuvalo
2) Muhammad Ali
3) Joe Louis
4) Sonny Liston
5) Luther McCarty
6) Roberto Duran
7) George Foreman
8) Henry Armstrong
9) Young Stribling
10) Jimmy McLarnin

[Exhibitman]

The OP list is pretty much consistent with what I've seen over the years. I might quibble here and there, perhaps add Sugar Ray Leonard to the top ten and drop Willie Pep out of there, but it is pretty strong.

SRR is definitely the GOAT. No one else has the breadth of accomplishments and length of highest level achievements.

Homicide Hank at one point held the lightweight (135) and welterweight (147) championships at the same time. And he started as a featherweight...Just remarkable.

I rank Louis a hair better than Ali so I'd change their places, but I wouldn't quibble.

Harry Greb I hadda look it up: he had 298 fights...yup, 298. He fought 46 bouts against HOFers.

The guy I'm surprised not to see anywhere on the list: Emile Griffith. 339 championship rounds fought.

As for rookie cards, sam, you just have to do your homework, make a choice, and be ready for a new discovery that moves the date back. Definitely not as clear cut as modern baseball, but we've always had debates, even in baseball, as to older players. 1925 Exhibit Gehrig or later card from a different set? And so on.

[Arazi4442]

Thanks, Adam.

Like I said earlier, I ended up making my own list of top 10 fighters to collect since there were so many I wasn't familiar with and obviously hadn't seen. I just thought it was interesting who was ranked and who wasn't. Looked like a pretty good list of boxing experts/historians.

Did the same list for my other sport collections but I thought boxing contained the only real surprises.

[Exhibitman]

I collect Louis and Leonard, so those are my top guys and I'd rank them 1st at heavyweight and lightweight but I could not argue with Ali and Duran.

[let’s go champ]

1.walker smith jr
2.henry Jackson Jr
3.joseph Barrow
4.Cassius Clay
5.Guglielmo Papaleo
6.Benjamin Leiner
7.Edward Greb
8.Joseph Gant
9.Ray Leonard
10.Roberto Duran


Just rite off the top , 5-8 interchanges depends on how I’m feeling

[glynparson]

As a card collector the 10 boxers I would choose to collect would be

1. Cassius Clay/ Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Joe Louis
5. John L. Sullivan
6. Sugar Ray Robinson
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Mike Tyson
9. Jake LaMotta
10. Abe Attell

By no means do I think these are the 10 greatest fighters though some would make that list. This is as a card collector so i took into account cards being available and demand for the boxer from my experiences.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Outside the big four sports I am a "top 10" collector. I have these boxers:
Louis
Robinson
Marciano
Clay/Ali
Liston
Holmes
Leonard
Frazier


Still looking for
Johnson
Foreman
Duran
Mayweather (if that stupid RC ever comes down)

Obviously I am weighted to postwar and heavyweights, but these are the guys I like. Probably should add Dempsey to the list.

[let’s go champ]

Mayweather (if that stupid RC ever comes down)




To this day I still regret not making a full out better effort to get that bgs 10 RC of his when up for auction , was In the running but just didn’t pursue it like I should have ,

[CW]

Reminds me of the barbershop scene in Coming to America.

(warning: some vulgarities here, but still a classic)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LPddiQXD9c

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

As a card collector the 10 boxers I would choose to collect would be

1. Cassius Clay/ Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Joe Louis
5. John L. Sullivan
6. Sugar Ray Robinson
7. Jack Dempsey the Manassas Mauler or the Non-Pareil?
8. Mike Tyson
9. Jake LaMotta
10. Abe Attell

By no means do I think these are the 10 greatest fighters though some would make that list. This is as a card collector so i took into account cards being available and demand for the boxer from my experiences..

[glynparson]

The Manassas Mauler Scott

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Tough to argue with the top 5. I'd tinker with the order a bit, personally. Like Adam, move Louis ahead of Ali and possibly into #2.

I think Ezzard Charles deserves to be higher.

Arthur

[profholt82]

Pound for pound, I've always considered Sugar Ray Robinson the greatest.

[Dpeck100]

I am not a boxing aficionado but I will never understand how Tyson is not in the running. He had most opponents beat before the bout and his sheer knockout force was simply unmatchable.

I have a neighbor Burch who is 70 and a good friend and he knows boxing and insists Casuius Clay is the best ever. I say Tyson would have knocked him out. We will never know.

Tyson just demolishing dudes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOHvMqAgcmc

[D. Bergin]

I am not a boxing aficionado but I will never understand how Tyson is not in the running. He had most opponents beat before the bout and his sheer knockout force was simply unmatchable.

I have a neighbor Burch who is 70 and a good friend and he knows boxing and insists Casuius Clay is the best ever. I say Tyson would have knocked him out. We will never know.

Tyson just demolishing dudes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOHvMqAgcmc


Tyson could be intimidating and scary, but he was mentally weak and a frontrunner. Similar to Sonny Liston.

Ali would have had him beat halfway through the first press conference.

Todays version of Mike Tyson would probably admit that to you right now.

Drama and Knockouts sell however, which is why Tyson's stuff sells for far more then many others I rate ahead of him.

[Exhibitman]

I agree with Dave's analysis re Ali. Tyson was ready-made for Ali's head games.

I understand the intrigue of a Tyson but his career is dominated with "ifs": if Cus D'Amato had lived five more years, if Kevin Rooney had trained him, if he hadn't used a woman like a toilet seat. His record is not impressive. He beat an old, fat Larry Holmes. The two other HOFers Tyson fought beat him 3x. He clobbered tomato cans, bums of the month, blown up 175# and 200# fighters, and journeymen. Compare that with Louis: He lost to Schmeling in 1935, Charles in 1950 and Marciano in 1951. All three are HOFers. And those last two losses occurred during a comeback he started at age 36 because he needed the money and was a shot fighter; in his prime he lost only once, at age 22, when he got KTFO by Schmeling. In the 16 years from 1934-1948 he went 56-1. In that run he beat HOFers Schmeling, Baer, Braddock, Lewis, Bivins, Conn (2x) and Walcott (2x). Just head and shoulders above Tyson.

[Bored5000]

Guys who were big punchers were made to order for Ali. No heavyweight in boxing history had a better chin than Ali did.

George Foreman was Tyson before there was Tyson from an intimidation and huge punching standpoint. Foreman 40-0 with 37 knockouts and seven years younger than Ali in the "Rumble in the Jungle." George Foreman's biggest punches could not take out Ali, but Tyson would?

Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield were guys who were not terrified by Tyson, and stood up to him. Ali was not intimidated by Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier and George Foreman; he would not be intimidated by Tyson, either.

[Dpeck100]

I always find it odd at how quickly people can say someone from the 30's was better than someone from the 70's or 80's etc. If you just look at images of athletes that span this time frame you rarely see athletes with physical attributes that compare to more modern day athletes. Whether that is from dietary changes, more vigorous exercise routines, enhanced training regimens, performance enhancing drugs, better lifestyle choices or just human evolution it is what it is.



It is hard for me to conceptually agree that even though they were participating in the same sport it is the same. While Tyson's entire career may leave him coming up short for the top five or top ten, I just don't see how he doesn't garner more respect in the discussion from his time in his prime. As an amateur he was flat out scary, he went on to be the youngest heavyweight champion and left a path of destruction in his wake. From a physical standpoint Tyson was a beast and a monster in the gym. He had the killer instinct that so many humans simply don't posses. He was at a constant disadvantage as he battled drug problems and still flattened opponents. He was a global superstar and had to deal with the pressure of the press and as his star rose so did the purses in boxing and he was now entrenched with the pressure of dealing with so much income.



It just seems like a really tough debate that isn't apples to apples. Just a few weeks ago Francis Ngannou knocked out Alistar Overeem with one punch. He came over to the UFC from the boxing world and has shattered the record for punching power. How can some one compare a boxer from the 50's who had big punching power yet it was no where close to as powerful? Tyson may have fought some bums or journeymen fighters but these weren't just victories but shocking knockouts. You were stepping in the ring with a great white shark and the outcome was that ferocious. When I watch the clips from his prime commentators were skeptical early on but were quick to realize he was special.



Obviously all of these statements in some form have been bounced around in the debate and long time boxing enthusiasts have heard them and have some counter punch as to why they don't matter so no minds will be changed but those are my beliefs.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

That's why Tyson has a following -- he didn't just beat his tomato cans, he demolished them. That makes for great TV but it doesn't mean you're a great boxer. He was a caged animal and when he came up against someone with true skill his frustration took over and he reacted that way.

I understand why people love going to youtube and watching Tyson highlights. People also love watching Kimbo Slice highlights. Doesn't mean they're great boxers.

Arthur

[Bored5000]

I always find it odd at how quickly people can say someone from the 30's was better than someone from the 70's or 80's etc. If you just look at images of athletes that span this time frame you rarely see athletes with physical attributes that compare to more modern day athletes. Whether that is from dietary changes, more vigorous exercise routines, enhanced training regimens, performance enhancing drugs, better lifestyle choices or just human evolution it is what it is.

It is hard for me to conceptually agree that even though they were participating in the same sport it is the same. While Tyson's entire career may leave him coming up short for the top five or top ten, I just don't see how he doesn't garner more respect in the discussion from his time in his prime.

I usually try to look at these all-time great discussions in the context of what the competition was like in that era and the level of dominance. The mid to late 1980s was one of the weakest eras ever for heavyweights. So many of the top fighters from that era either lacked heart, were perpetually out of shape or had drug problems.

But the reason Tyson does not get respect when compared to the all-time great heavyweights is because his resume is so thin when compared to the top heavyweights of all-time. Tyson was absolutely breathtaking to watch and a phenomenon in the 1980s, but he lost convincingly when matched against guys who were not intimidated.

One of the other reasons Tyson does not get much respect in the all-time rankings is that he was so weak mentally and folded up his tent when he could not simply intimidate an opponent into quitting before a fight even began.

[samosa4u]

I have a neighbor Burch who is 70 and a good friend and he knows boxing and insists Casuius Clay is the best ever. I say Tyson would have knocked him out. We will never know.

Hahahaha!!! When Tyson got put into the ring with solid competition, he couldn't knock any of them out, so how on earth do you think he would have been able to knock out Ali?

Now people always bring up Buster Douglas, but I am not going to go that route because there were a lot of guys Tyson struggled against. Go watch his fight against Mitch Green.

[Dpeck100]

Hahahaha!!! When Tyson got put into the ring with solid competition, he couldn't knock any of them out, so how on earth do you think he would have been able to knock out Ali?

Now people always bring up Buster Douglas, but I am not going to go that route because there were a lot of guys Tyson struggled against. Go watch his fight against Mitch Green.



If you have ever watched MMA you would know better than to laugh. It only takes one Tyson punch to go down if it lands.

He may have lost but none of us will ever know. There were a ton of fighters that said they had Tyson's number only to wind up laying on the canvas.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

It only takes one punch from anyone for anyone to go down. I thought we were talking about skill.

Arthur

[Dpeck100]

It only takes one punch from anyone for anyone to go down. I thought we were talking about skill.

Arthur



I don't think Tyson was the most well rounded fighter. You might be able to find a few that argue that but I doubt many. I think why myself and legions of others think he belongs in the discussion is he was a total bad ass and could knock out fighters that had more technical skill than him.

A fight is a fight. Randy Couture was more skilled than Brock Lesnar but it didn't change the outcome and Brock laid him out.

In the lower weight classes most of the guys are extremely technically proficient but lack power. I think of the heavyweight division and power trumps proficiency in my book with the danger level of entering the ring with so much larger fighters being so much higher.

You can watch most 155 pound MMA guys go five rounds. Only a select few have knockout power and that is why their popularity is so high. Lighting fast and deadly.

Look at a guy like Floyd Mayweather. Great fighter obviously but he isn't sending anyone to the hospital.

[Exhibitman]

First of all, MMA and boxing are not analogs, so any comparison with MMA is just pointless. Put the best MMA fighter in a boxing ring under the unified commission rules and he will be out of his depth, as MacGregor was. It isn't the same sport. Michael Jordan was one of the greatest basketball players of alltime but was a sucky baseball player. Irrelevant.

Next, let's talk training, nutrition, etc. You cannot assume that a 1930s fighter would be living and training the same in 1990. The man is the same, the training techniques are not. How about we flip it and put Tyson in the gym in 1930 with crappy food, no A/C, rudimentary medicine, etc.

Knockouts are entertaining but are not the whole story. Not even close. 2018 HOFer Vitali Klitschko knocked out 87.3% of his opponents. Tyson knocked out 76% of his. Does that make Vitali better than Tyson?

Then there is how a fighter 'looks'. David, you've resorted to this eyeball test over and over again. How a guy looks is probably the least useful gauge of performance. Old time fighters didn't lift weights; the trainers believed it would make them too tight to box effectively. What they did was fight. A lot. Most of the guys on the top lists who fought in the earlier days had triple digits in total fights:

Henry Armstrong 181
Willie Pep 241
Sugar Ray Robinson 200
Harry Greb 298
Sam Langford 256
Benny Leonard 95 (in 11 years)
Bob Fitzsimmons 99 that we know of, lots of bouts not recorded in Australia on his way up

and so on. My point being, these guys were hard as a coffin nail and nastier than a rattlesnake. They had to be to survive, and the proof is in the way they responded to the roughest, toughest fighters. Louis lost once as a 22 year old; he came back in the rematch and broke Schmeling's back. Holyfield TKO'd Tyson and Tyson reacted in the rematch with a blatant series of fouls that got him disqualified rather than lose again.

Tyson was a killer as long as he was in with a lesser talent or a has-been, but his record against HOFers speaks for itself: 1-3. He is a legitimate HOFer and a legitimate top 20 heavyweight but he is not a top 10 P4P.

[Dpeck100]

I have never commented on the greatest heavyweight of all time in this thread prior to yesterday and I don't recall ever commenting prior in any other thread.

Yes I do think Tyson's appearance is far supperior and I realize that cut muscles isn't the deciding factor in a fight.

I do think it says a lot about his conditioning.

There are plenty of great boxers in MMA and if that was their focus could be very competitive in boxing.

It's funny I am having some work done at my condo and I have on a Tyson tshirt and had him on my big screen and one of the guys asked if I boxed. Said no but love Tyson and think he doesn't get as much credit as he deserves. His comment was I think he was the best.

[D. Bergin]

Like Adam, I'd rank Tyson a Top 20 Heavyweight (maybe somewhere in the middle of the pack if I really had to think about it).

That said, I understand why Tyson is considered so collectible. He has that "it" or "wow" factor, a lot of fighters we might consider superior, don't have.

He also is a bit of an icon in his own right, and even with the many horrible things he might have done in his personal life (and in the ring), he still comes across as likable and accessible to many.

He's an incredibly self-aware guy to, which is uncommon in many high profile celebrities, athletes and politicians.

[Dpeck100]

It is definitely nice to see his stuff more sought after this point.

In 2010 what gave me the idea to look for his cards was watching his ESPN DVD The Best of Mike Tyson.

I just was blown away at what a wrecking machine he was. Boxers for good reason were legit scared to fight the guy.

I think social media is why he stuff has become more collected. Youtube has done wonders for his appeal.

He may not rank high with boxing enthusiasts but for many fans he was the pinnacle of boxing during their lifetime and that probably influences their opinion a great deal. I fall into this category.

[Arazi4442]

Tyson was a completely different fighter after the death of Cus D'Amato. I think that's one of the reasons it's so difficult to rank him all-time. Early in his career he was a knockout machine, to the point that many heavyweights fought him but wouldn't engage him for a second, even in title fights. (Similar to Foreman before the Ali fight) Watch the Mitch Green fight or "Bonecrusher" Smith. Those guys were legitimate heavyweights in the late 80s and early 90s and wanted no part of a young Tyson.

I prefer to remember that fighter and would absolutely put him in my top 5 all-time heavyweight fighters. After Cus' death, he lost a lot of discipline and started getting into all kinds of trouble outside the ring. That's the Tyson most detractors remember and pretty much ruined his legacy, IMO.

[Exhibitman]

Well I guess peak performance is one way to look at them too. Of course, that would include the Jack Dempsey who pulverized Jess Willard's face, the Joe Louis who fractured Max Schmeling's vertebrae, etc. Like I said, some very, very tough guys.

[Dpeck100]

I have to assume the gloves were less padded in the earlier days so those shots had to really hurt.

Were there a lot of blood baths back in the days?

[profholt82]

I have to assume the gloves were less padded in the earlier days so those shots had to really hurt.

Were there a lot of blood baths back in the days?

If you go way back, during the latter 19th century there was a gloved champion and a bare knuckle champion. John L. Sullivan notably held both titles at one point. While I wasn't there, certainly there must have been many a blood bath in those days.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

I think another reason why Tyson is more popular than his actual ranking is the state of the sport of boxing. Most of the guys we're talking about fought when boxing was one of, if not the, most popular sports in America. When Tyson fought, boxing was a wasteland of fraud, criminals, and drugs. He stood out more in that era because there wasn't much else at the time. For those collecting boxing cards of fighters they saw, who are they going to be drawn to? Of course it's going to be the carnival show that was Mike Tyson.

Arthur

[Bored5000]

I just was blown away at what a wrecking machine he was. Boxers for good reason were legit scared to fight the guy.



David, have you read Tyson's autobiography from 4-5 years ago? It is an amazing read; he is brutally honest and reflective. One of the anecdotes he tells in the book is a story of walking down the street a few years ago and hearing a young girl tell her father, "Hey, there's Mike Tyson, the actor from 'The Hangover.'" It was at that moment that it dawned on Tyson that an entire generation does not have any idea that he was once the undisputed heavyweight champion.

Tyson talks about every major fight he had and the back story behind each fight. Tyson talked about the pre-fight staredown in the middle of the ring before a fight and that if a guy did not look him in the eye, Tyson knew the guy was scared. One guy Tyson mentions in particular as being scared was Frank Bruno, who Tyson said drew a cross on his chest with his finger numerous times before their first fight.

If I am not mistake, don't you work as a financial adviser? If so, you will probably appreciate this story. Tyson talked about pissing away hundreds of millions of dollars and having a forensic accountant examine his finances. One of the things the accountant found was a long forgotten IRA that Cus D'Amato had set up for Tyson shortly before D'Amato died.

The IRA had grown to $250,000 by the time Tyson's accountant found it. Upon being informed that D'Amato had set up this IRA for him, Tyson sat and cried because D'Amato was the only guy who wasn't trying to rip him off financially.

Tyson is brutally honest in the book when talking about his low self-esteem, depression, self-hatred.

[D. Bergin]

I regularly park across the street from Tyson's old house in Farmington, CT (50 Cents house now), to access a hiking trail near where I live.

The thing is gargantuan. It's no wonder Tyson went broke........and 50 Cent is following suit.................and I think at the time, it was only one of several houses he owned at the same time.

[Dpeck100]

David, have you read Tyson's autobiography from a 4-5 years ago? It is an amazing read; he is brutally honest and reflective. One of the anecdotes he tells in the book is a story of walking down the street a few years ago and hearing a young girl tell her father, "Hey, there's Mike Tyson, the actor from 'The Hangover.'" It was at that moment that it dawned on Tyson that an entire generation does not have any idea that he was once the undisputed heavyweight champion.

Tyson talks about every major fight he had and the back story behind each fight. Tyson talked about the pre-fight staredown in the middle of the ring before a fight and that if a guy did not look him in the eye, Tyson knew the guy was scared. One guy Tyson mentions in particular as being scared was Frank Bruno, who Tyson said drew a cross on his chest with his finger numerous times before their first fight.

If I am not mistake, don't you work as a financial adviser? If so, you will probably appreciate this story. Tyson talked about pissing away hundreds of millions of dollars and having a forensic accountant examine his finances. One of the things the accountant found was a long forgotten IRA that Cus D'Amato had set up for Tyson shortly before D'Amato died.

The IRA had grown to $250,000 by the time Tyson's accountant found it. Upon being informed that D'Amato had set up this IRA for him, Tyson sat and cried because D'Amato was the only guy who wasn't trying to rip him off financially.

Tyson is brutally honest in the book when talking about his low self-esteem, depression, self-hatred.


Great post.

I do have the book but haven't made it very far with it. It is a tough read early on when talking about his childhood. Your post already convinced me I need to pick it back up.

Yes I am a financial advisor and it is amazing what money can do if left untouched. It is easier said than done with the 24 hour news cycle.

Just to out of curiosity I watched some Foreman clips and he fought a bunch of out of shape guys too.

What is interesting to me about the collectability of Tyson is when I first started posting on card message boards it was because I was researching the Tyson sticker and found a post on CU talking about the little bidding war I got into with another collector in 2010 and signed up to comment. I won the sticker for $82 and immediately went and cleaned out Martin Bradford who was the only person with stickers for sale. I bought 4 more of the Panini for $15 to $25 a pop and three of the 88 ones for something similar. I started posting about it and most thought because of Tyson's personal history they had no chance to rise. Thankfully a seller from Cyprus had a hoard of the 86 Panini and I loaded up on pack fresh copies. Myself and another guy from the CU board sent in copies to PSA at the same time and his popped first and was a UK back and mine second which was the first Italian back to be graded. I was thrilled when they ran up initially and shocked when they doubled basically overnight and while they have backed off a little I still think they are under priced relative to other major rookies. Time will tell. I sold off a good number over the years and now have a 10 which I bought, 5 9's, an 8 and a UK 8 and a beater. I am waiting to buy a UK 10 because it isn't the rookie and overtime the market is more broadly realizing it. I get emails from random people asking to buy one of my copies but they are staying in my collection.

[Exhibitman]

Nice story on the Panini Tysons. If I'd cleaned house on them back in the day I'd probably be more of a booster too. I didn't get on that train but I am hoping that Anthony Joshua pans out (salted away some 2012 Panini Adrenalyn when the pickings were easy).

Paninis are under-respected generally. If you're trying for a HOF collection as I am and you want career-issued cards I think you more or less have to have several Paninis in there: 1973 Duran, Foreman 1982 Hagler 1986 Tyson 1988 Chavez. There are quite a few other HOFers with cards and/or RCs in the sets, but these are really the biggest names' earliest cards. What I find curious is the lack of respect for them relative to other sets like the Mira Tuttosport. Man are those cards pricey by comparison. I have a middle of the road specimen in my type cards because I don't want to pay up to improve it. I also don't think the market prices in the Panini Valida backs accordingly.

[Dpeck100]

Nice story on the Panini Tysons. If I'd cleaned house on them back in the day I'd probably be more of a booster too. I didn't get on that train but I am hoping that Anthony Joshua pans out (salted away some 2012 Panini Adrenalyn when the pickings were easy).

Paninis are under-respected generally. If you're trying for a HOF collection as I am and you want career-issued cards I think you more or less have to have several Paninis in there: 1973 Duran, Foreman 1982 Hagler 1986 Tyson 1988 Chavez. There are quite a few other HOFers with cards and/or RCs in the sets, but these are really the biggest names' earliest cards. What I find curious is the lack of respect for them relative to other sets like the Mira Tuttosport. Man are those cards pricey by comparison. I have a middle of the road specimen in my type cards because I don't want to pay up to improve it. I also don't think the market prices in the Panini Valida backs accordingly.



What gave me more confidence that Tyson was a winner is the legacy of Panini boxing. I just couldn't see how my generations boxing king wouldn't be valuable.

In general boxing seems under priced. I don't have a connection to most of it so it really isn't for me but I think those that do will be rewarded one day. You can't just get on EBAY and find what you are looking for.

Yes I am a booster! 1982-83 Wrestling All Stars and Mike Tyson! Haha.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

David, you practically single-handedly created the Panini Tyson market. You either bought or bid up every one that hit eBay for a period of time all while posting nonstop on CU about them and boasting about how their value would soar. I don't expect you to take a different stance on Tyson the boxer for obvious reasons but I thought a little transparency might be good for the conversation.

Arthur

[Dpeck100]

David, you practically single-handedly created the Panini Tyson market. You either bought or bid up every one that hit eBay for a period of time all while posting nonstop on CU about them and boasting about how their value would soar. I don't expect you to take a different stance on Tyson the boxer for obvious reasons but I thought a little transparency might be good for the conversation.

Arthur



:)

Yes that is true. I was very optimistic about the potential and was quite vocal about it.

I did the same thing with the wrestling cards. I have no problem disclosing any of my motives because everyone was wrong any ways. I still have at least 99% of the cards I have purchased. My grand pump and dump never came to be.

[samosa4u]

I am waiting to buy a UK 10 because it isn't the rookie and overtime the market is more broadly realizing it.

So only the Italian back is his RC and not the UK version? Weren't they released the same year? Please explain. Thanks.

[Dpeck100]

The Italian is 86 and the UK is 87. I figured it out when I read the back of a U.K. and it talked about a tennis tournament from 87. Getting my haircut and will update further later. Think it was Australian open. It also has a 87 copyright on the album.

[Dpeck100]

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/878208/1986-panini-supersport-mike-tyson-psa-10-that-was-on-ebay-major-update/p5


Here is the thread. It is the Australian Open. I posted in another thread the initial proof with the info from the back but forgot which one it was and wrote French Open here.


BGS started labeling them from 1987 first and now PSA does.


The UK back is cool but not the rookie.

[Dpeck100]

Here is the SMR info.

[Arazi4442]

That's great info, David. I had no idea about the differences in the UK vs. Italian versions. Love learning about some of the "rookie" options for athletes not in the 4 major sports. Tyson, Pele, Ali, Jesse Owens, etc. Thank you!

[Bored5000]

Great post.

I do have the book but haven't made it very far with it. It is a tough read early on when talking about his childhood. Your post already convinced me I need to pick it back up.

Yes I am a financial advisor and it is amazing what money can do if left untouched. It is easier said than done with the 24 hour news cycle.

Just to out of curiosity I watched some Foreman clips and he fought a bunch of out of shape guys too.

What is interesting to me about the collectability of Tyson is when I first started posting on card message boards it was because I was researching the Tyson sticker and found a post on CU talking about the little bidding war I got into with another collector in 2010 and signed up to comment. I won the sticker for $82 and immediately went and cleaned out Martin Bradford who was the only person with stickers for sale. I bought 4 more of the Panini for $15 to $25 a pop and three of the 88 ones for something similar. I started posting about it and most thought because of Tyson's personal history they had no chance to rise. Thankfully a seller from Cyprus had a hoard of the 86 Panini and I loaded up on pack fresh copies. Myself and another guy from the CU board sent in copies to PSA at the same time and his popped first and was a UK back and mine second which was the first Italian back to be graded. I was thrilled when they ran up initially and shocked when they doubled basically overnight and while they have backed off a little I still think they are under priced relative to other major rookies. Time will tell. I sold off a good number over the years and now have a 10 which I bought, 5 9's, an 8 and a UK 8 and a beater. I am waiting to buy a UK 10 because it isn't the rookie and overtime the market is more broadly realizing it. I get emails from random people asking to buy one of my copies but they are staying in my collection.

By all means, dive back into the Tyson book. It is hard to put down once he turns pro and gives background on what so many of his opponents were like outside the ring and the craziness that was going on in Tyson's life.

I don't want to give too much away, because it is such an amazing read. But Tyson said Larry Holmes told him that he (Tyson) is not a pimple on Holmes' ass and that Holmes was the real legend. Holmes further told Tyson that he will eventually destroy himself, which Tyson conceded was correct.

Tyson talked about how much it pissed him off to hear everyone talk about what a great guy Evander Holyfield was because he would constantly "talk that Jesus shit." Meanwhile, Holyfield would constantly hit on the break and rabbit punch. As I was reading the book, I would often put it down and go watch YouTube clips to see what Tyson was talking about regarding a particular fight.

Tyson is completely up front in stating that he was an arrogant asshole when he was 21 years old. One of the things he really feels bad about now was Pinklon Thomas sticking his hand out to shake Tyson's hand at the pre-fight press conference. Tyson responded by telling Thomas that he should get down on his knees and perform a sex act just for having the chance to share a ring with Tyson.

The book is very r-rated.

One other quick anecdote is that Tyson talks about Marvis Frazier (famously destroyed in 30 seconds by Tyson) being way too nice a guy to be involved in a scummy sport like boxing. Tyson wrote that Marvis Frazier really didn't want to box, but was only doing so to try and make his father proud.

Yes, Foreman did fight some stiffs. But my post was largely in the context that he was viewed as an unbeatable killing machine by the time he fought Ali in Zaire. Ali was viewed as being old and having no shot at the guy who had completely destroyed Joe Frazier to win the title.

[samosa4u]

The Italian is 86 and the UK is 87. I figured it out when I read the back of a U.K. and it talked about a tennis tournament from 87. Getting my haircut and will update further later. Think it was Australian open. It also has a 87 copyright on the album.

The UK version is from 1987? O H M Y G O D ! ! ! :eek: Think of all the "rookie investors" who spent thousands of dollars on the PSA 10 UK version. Now that we know it's a second-year card, it's obviously worth way less. These guys lost lots of money due to PSA's error. I do own one UK version, and it's a PSA 8, but I didn't spend too much on it - thank God I didn't go after the 9s and 10s! PSA incorrectly labeled mine as the Italian version and put the year down as 1985 - that's TWO errors on one label! :( They really have no clue what they're doing, do they?

So Does Tyson have 3 second-year Panini cards?

- UK Foil (#109)
- UK Supersport (#153)
- Italian Supersport (#160)

[Dpeck100]

The UK version is from 1987? O H M Y G O D ! ! ! :eek: Think of all the "rookie investors" who spent thousands of dollars on the PSA 10 UK version. Now that we know it's a second-year card, it's obviously worth way less. These guys lost lots of money due to PSA's error. I do own one UK version, and it's a PSA 8, but I didn't spend too much on it - thank God I didn't go after the 9s and 10s! PSA incorrectly labeled mine as the Italian version and put the year down as 1985 - that's TWO errors on one label! :( They really have no clue what they're doing, do they?

So Does Tyson have 3 second-year Panini cards?

- UK Foil (#109)
- UK Supersport (#153)
- Italian Supersport (#160)



I have no clue how many 10's there really are. The combined pop reports show 11 but I know for fact there are one or two UK copies labeled Italian and of those 5 are UK currently.

Here are the first two I got graded. I wrote in 1986 but they labeled them 1985.


1 1 18761404 MINT 9 1985 Panini Supersport Italian 153 Mike Tyson Card
1 2 18761405 MINT 9 1985 Panini Supersport Italian 153 Mike Tyson Card


I just checked and they are back in the 1985 population report!


Here is the next wave. They too are back in the 1985 population totals.


11 1 18632577 MINT 9 1985 Panini Supersport Italian 153 Mike Tyson Card
12 1 18632578 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1985 Panini Supersport Italian 153 Mike Tyson Card
13 1 18632579 MINT 9 1985 Panini Supersport Italian 153 Mike Tyson Card


Okay this is really odd. Now these that were graded as 86 show 85 for Italian and it shows the UK as 1987. All slabbed 1986.

9 1 19707443 MINT 9 1985 Panini Supersport Italian 153 Mike Tyson Card
9 2 19707444 NEAR MINT 7 1985 Panini Supersport Italian 153 Mike Tyson Card
9 3 19707445 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1985 Panini Supersport Italian 153 Mike Tyson Card
10 1 19707447 NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1987 Panini Supersport UK 153 Mike Tyson Card



Yes whomever purchased the UK PSA 10's did buy a second year card. With it being the same image it will remain popular but defiantly not the rookie.


These are the following Panini Tyson's in order.

1986 Panini Italian #153

1987 Foil UK #109

1987 Panini UK #153

1988 Panini #160 Bianchi Back (most common) Supersport Back and Gritti Back.


I am even more confused at this point about the actual population totals than ever before.


My PSA 10 shows in the 1986 Totals.


https://www.psacard.com/cert/21309877/

[samosa4u]

David,

Don't even bother trying to figure out the population for these cards or you're going to make your head explode! :) PSA has gotten everything mixed up. The only way they can really fix this mess is if everyone sends theirs back to them. They would then have to 1) fix the labels and 2) fix their online population report. It'll be a big job. Anyways, I'm going to send mine back so they can fix the label, or should I just leave it the way it is?

[Dpeck100]

I see you live in Canada. That could get expensive shipping it there and back if PSA doesn't cover the cost.

Personally I am not a fan of sending my graded cards off and that is why I haven't ever done any formal reviews but many people do it. If you decide to go that route I think I would contact PSA and see if they will cover the cost.

I was thrilled when I was able to uncover that the image is from his interview at the 11:09 mark of his fight with Sammy Scaff from December 6th 1985.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvPByKY8w6s&t=681s

My main focus is wrestling and the 1986 WWF OPC Series II is labeled 1985 and it is a set based around Wrestlemania II which took place April 7th 1986. A lot of the sets that had limited information and collectors interested have some labeling errors that is for sure.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

You guys are pissing into the wind. The boxing pop report is chock full of gross errors that will never be fixed. There's a 1942 set they have listed as 1935 that has Joe Louis in it so people have been buying it since day 1 thinking they're getting a Joe Louis rookie. Not to mention that the Louis card is at least double-printed, possibly reprinted, that accounts for the vast majority of Louis examples out there.

Arthur

[Exhibitman]

Or this:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/rareboxingcards/websize/1967%20Golazo%20144%20Perez.JPG

The mfg is Crack. The set is Sport. The word "figuritas" means large cards. They have it right in 1965 with "Crack Golazo Figuritas".

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

The '67 set Crack Campeon. The album says Figuritas Sport the same way we'd have an album that says sports cards. Most of the albums from that era have those generic titles on them in some way, shape or form. Which also helps screw everything up when someone provides one to PSA and says "here, see? the name of the set is Figuritas Sport."

[Exhibitman]

Maybe they thought Crack was a joke.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

The funny part is that they just put on the flip whatever you write in your book. So for the '62 Cassius, instead of labeling it 1962 Po-Po, they put 1962 Po-Po Boxing Disc. I've abandoned all hope.

[Exhibitman]

Funny cause when I try to get them to slab something in my book they act like they don’t know what I am talking about.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Weird. I have a pretty high success rate just by putting in the comment section something like "cataloged in Adam W's book blah blah blah on page" and then other stuff if it pertains like "you've already graded one other example from this set" stuff like that. To be honest, I'm not sure I remember a time when I referenced your book that they didn't slab it.

I don't think they like you.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

You have the '66 Maravillas in your South America section, right?

Arthur

[Exhibitman]

I know they don't like me; few people do.

The Maravillas are either in the book or will be in the next one. I lost a few pages last time around. Besides, I need to get my Fighting Harada slabbed.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays.

[Exhibitman]

Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Mondays.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/dropins/websize/Lumbergh.png